God's Justice

[POI]

Thus says the Lord: I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbour, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this very sun. 12 For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. (2 Samuel 12:11-12)

For debate: If a husband commits adultery, is justice served by having the adulterer's wives raped?

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #20]

For debate: If a husband commits adultery, is justice served by having the adulterer's wives raped? Yes or no, and why?

Add-on: Is God's justice opinion? Yes or no, and why?

********************************

Your strategy is to filibuster every sentence I write, in an attempt to throw off the topic. You might also try to do this here, below the dotted line above. The reason you have not addressed the other words in this debate question, is because you know once we explore the words 'innocent' and 'rape', your goose is cooked. Why? Easy. God commands that this fellow takes the adulterer's wives. We know it is (rape) because if the taken wives did not consent to the said action, the command would still be carried out regardless. This is rape. As stated prior, these women's consents were neither needed nor required. This is where differing apologetic tactics must instead be engaged. Rather than dealing with the rape of the innocent, and by (innocent), I mean, these wives are innocent of adultery, you are instead offering vast detours, so we never actually get to the meat and potatoes of this discussion. No one is buying what you are selling here. This passage objectively demonstrates that your imaginary god orders the rape of the innocent. And you are throwing a big fat tantrum, by way of gaslighting, applying roadblocks, offering evasion, etc.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #21]

And you are throwing a big fat tantrum

You are so far off here. I am not throwing a "tantrum" in the least. Rather, I am enjoying exposing the trainwreck of a worldview you hold.

If a husband commits adultery, is justice served by having the adulterer's wives raped? Yes or no, and why?

I have answered this question the only factual way it can be answered. You understand this to be the case, and therefore, you whine that it is not a yes, or no answer. Again, the fact is, if we cannot determine a set standard of justice which would apply to us all, then this necessitates that a yes, or no answer would have to be an opinion. The point is you are insisting that the command in the passage is unjust. The question is, would this be an opinion you hold, or would it be a fact that the command in the passage was unjust? My guess is you will avoid answering this question just like you avoided answering the question "Why don't you explain to us what "innocent wives" were raped in this passage" in my last post, and telling us "and by (innocent), I mean, these wives are innocent of adultery" is not answering the question as to what wives were actually raped. You will avoid answering both of these questions, because that trainwreck of a worldview you have will not allow you to answer these questions and maintain that trainwreck of a worldview. Please do not take this as a tantrum, because I am laughing, and enjoying every minute.

Your strategy is to filibuster every sentence I write, in an attempt to throw off the topic.

Here comes another question you will have to avoid. How is it off topic for me to answer the question, "If a husband commits adultery, is justice served by having the adulterer's wives raped", by pointing out the fact that we cannot determine such a thing unless we can demonstrate a set standard of justice which would apply to us all? Is there a set standard of justice which would apply to us all? If so, and it can be demonstrated that the passage in question violates this standard, then the answer would be yes. However, if we agree that there is no set standard of justice which would bind us all, then a yes, or no answer would by necessity have to be an opinion. This is not filibustering, and it is not off topic. Rather, it is the only factual answer which can be given to your question. My friend, it is you who is avoiding the questions I am asking which would be directly related to the topic of the thread, and you are doing so because you cannot afford to answer the questions and continue to hold on to that trainwreck of a worldview you have.

Add-on: Is God's justice opinion? Yes or no, and why?

Adding this on is only making things worse for you, since it is coming from one who does not believe in a god with a set standard of justice. If you cannot see how this makes it worse, then the trainwreck is far worse than I imagined.

The reason you have not addressed the other words in this debate question, is because you know once we explore the words 'innocent' and 'rape', your goose is cooked.

No, actually I have wanted to bring up the fact that you use the word "innocent" and I believe that I have. The reason I have not pushed it is because you are already in a pile of mess, and I wanted to stay focused on what we have already demonstrated. But since you bring it up, I will be more than happy to demonstrate how this makes it even worse for you.

First, none of David's wives were raped in this passage. We know for a fact that at least one of David's wives was guilty of adultery. What we do not know is if the rest of his wives were innocent. Another thing we know whether there be a God or not is that the consequences of our actions do not always affect only us, because many times the consequences will be paid by those who you claim are innocent. You know this to be a fact, so would you say this would be justice?

But the main question here is, who among us is innocent? You see, I can proudly poke out my chest with the Pharisees of Jesus' day and say, "I have never committed adultery". However, if adultery includes lust in my heart, then I am no longer innocent. You see, you are confusing being innocent of the law of the land, with a set standard which has not been demonstrated. The point is, there may be a whole lot of things I may be found innocent of in a court of law, but this certainly does not demonstrate my innocence.

I am thinking it best to stick to the topic at hand and leave God out of the equation, since we both seem to agree there is no set standard of justice which would apply to us all. Because you see, when you add God into the equation, we are going to have to think a whole lot more, and some of us are at our limit as far as thinking is concerned.

God commands that this fellow takes the adulterer's wives.

What "fellow" was this? I'm just telling you, this is not a tantrum. It is just plain fun.

We know it is (rape) because if the taken wives did not consent to the said action

What "wives" were taken?

the command would still be carried out regardless

Was the command carried out?

This is rape.

Was it?

As stated prior, these women's consents were neither needed nor required.

Were these women raped?

This is where differing apologetic tactics must instead be engaged.

This is not a tactic. Was the command carried out, and were the women raped?

Rather than dealing with the rape of the innocent

Who got raped?

This passage objectively demonstrates that your imaginary god orders the rape of the innocent.

In the passage you are referring to, who did God order to rape anyone? I do not see where God ordered anyone in the passage to rape anyone, and I do not see where any women were raped.

[POI]

I have answered this question the only factual way it can be answered.

You are confusing 'writing words' and then hitting [reply], or applying a mere 'response', with instead actually answering the straightforward question. They are not one-in-the-same.

You understand this to be the case, and therefore, you whine that it is not a yes, or no answer. Again, the fact is, if we cannot determine a set standard of justice which would apply to us all, then this necessitates that a yes, or no answer would have to be an opinion. The point is you are insisting that the command in the passage is unjust.

You've ignored what I have actually said here. Allow me to simplify it even further for you. Unless words do not actually mean words at all, and any word instead means anything at all, then the word 'justice' is not logically compatible with (raping the innocent), regardless of how you wish to apply a definition. Hence, asking 'what is justice', in this context, is a pointless diversion, (orchestrated by dishonest apologists), to deliberately divert the obvious. Period.

The question is, would this be an opinion you hold, or would it be a fact that the command in the passage was unjust? My guess is you will avoid answering this question just like you avoided answering the question

I already answered here. Also, see my answer directly above.

"Why don't you explain to us what "innocent wives" were raped in this passage" in my last post, and telling us "and by (innocent), I mean, these wives are innocent of adultery" is not answering the question as to what wives were actually raped. You will avoid answering both of these questions, because that trainwreck of a worldview you have will not allow you to answer these questions and maintain that trainwreck of a worldview.

These are the depths you must stoop to in order to retain belief in this fairy tale collection of books. Here is the command from the imaginary god's imaginary mouth: "Thus says the Lord: I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbour, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this very sun.".

Please do not take this as a tantrum, because I am laughing, and enjoying every minute.

Then in your case, ignorance must be bliss.

Here comes another question you will have to avoid. How is it off topic for me to answer the question, "If a husband commits adultery, is justice served by having the adulterer's wives raped", by pointing out the fact that we cannot determine such a thing unless we can demonstrate a set standard of justice which would apply to us all? Is there a set standard of justice which would apply to us all? If so, and it can be demonstrated that the passage in question violates this standard, then the answer would be yes. However, if we agree that there is no set standard of justice which would bind us all, then a yes, or no answer would by necessity have to be an opinion. This is not filibustering, and it is not off topic. Rather, it is the only factual answer which can be given to your question. My friend, it is you who is avoiding the questions I am asking which would be directly related to the topic of the thread, and you are doing so because you cannot afford to answer the questions and continue to hold on to that trainwreck of a worldview you have.

I've answered this multiple times. You just do not like it because you have no answer, only instead strawman/divergent/filibuster responses. Please keep re-reading my prior responses, and the responses given above in the same post, for your answer(s). Please stop misrepresenting what I say. I know you have no choice here, but onlookers are probably going to stop reading along (out of boredom) if you do not adopt some new divisive tactic.

Adding this on is only making things worse for you, since it is coming from one who does not believe in a god with a set standard of justice. If you cannot see how this makes it worse, then the trainwreck is far worse than I imagined.

More avoidance... I'm asking YOU, the believer. Is God's brand of 'justice' opinion too, or not? Either answer of (yes or no) deserves a follow-up <why> in your reply. You know this places you in between a rock and hard place, as either answer presents with logical problems.

No, actually I have wanted to bring up the fact that you use the word "innocent" and I believe that I have. The reason I have not pushed it is because you are already in a pile of mess, and I wanted to stay focused on what we have already demonstrated. But since you bring it up, I will be more than happy to demonstrate how this makes it even worse for you.

LOL! How considerate of you. And I doubt you will demonstrate anything, other than your apologetic dishonesty.

First, none of David's wives were raped in this passage. We know for a fact that at least one of David's wives was guilty of adultery. What we do not know is if the rest of his wives were innocent. Another thing we know whether there be a God or not is that the consequences of our actions do not always affect only us, because many times the consequences will be paid by those who you claim are innocent. You know this to be a fact, so would you say this would be justice?

Why even order it if God is just? Is such an order even 'just'?

But the main question here is, who among us is innocent? You see, I can proudly poke out my chest with the Pharisees of Jesus' day and say, "I have never committed adultery". However, if adultery includes lust in my heart, then I am no longer innocent. You see, you are confusing being innocent of the law of the land, with a set standard which has not been demonstrated. The point is, there may be a whole lot of things I may be found innocent of in a court of law, but this certainly does not demonstrate my innocence.

Hmm, and since words no longer apparently mean words at all, ANY definition goes. According to you, we are in the literary wild west, and everyone is also justly deserving of a raping. Talk about a trainwreck worldview. So, if your son/daughter ever gets raped, you have no means to complain about it. They all have acts of lust, which means they justly deserve to be raped.

I am thinking it best to stick to the topic at hand and leave God out of the equation, since we both seem to agree there is no set standard of justice which would apply to us all. Because you see, when you add God into the equation, we are going to have to think a whole lot more, and some of us are at our limit as far as thinking is concerned.

More dishonesty and strawman arguments here.

[POI]

Below is the demonstrated trainwreck world view of RealWorldJack:

1) Throw off the scent, rather than to answer the simple question, because the question poses much uncomfortability.
2) Imply that the term justice can mean anything at all. Words apparently no longer mean words.
3) Keep continuing to press that the term justice means differing things to differing people, which then means it can also logically involve the rape of the innocent. The term justice apparently has no boundaries.
4) Adultery apparently also includes thought crime, (simply because, the book of tales my interlocutor believes in, says so), which is also justly punishable by being raped. Which then also means that every married person deserves to be raped, as all will commit at least some thought crime.
5) God commands the rape of the adulterer's wives rather that ordering the raping of the husband who actually penetrated someone other than his wives. However, the command was never actually carried out in this particular instance.
6) Being that this topic is about (God's justice), Jack still will not answer (whether or not) God's brand of justice is opinion.

These are the apologetic pitfalls, (i.e.) <mental gymnastics> in which one must perform in order to retain devotion to this collection of fairy tales. Would you like some proverbial mustard on your proverbial created pretzel?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #24]

1) Throw off the scent, rather than to answer the simple question, because the question poses much uncomfortability.

I answered the question, but in case you missed it, allow me to answer again. If you can demonstrate a set standard of justice which would apply to us all, and it can be demonstrated that the passage you are referring to violates said standard, then the answer would be yes. However, if you insist there is no set standard of justice which would apply to us all, then the answer would be no. You see, you cannot insist there is no set standard of justice which would apply to us all, and then go on to insist that someone, or something violates justice. The best you could possibly say is that "someone, or something violates your opinion of justice". You certainly cannot say, it absolutely violates justice, since you insist there is no absolute justice. For one to insist there is no set standard of justice, and then go on to insist that something, or someone has absolutely violated justice, would be to demonstrate cognitive dissonance, and you would have to agree, since cognitive dissonance is to hold two different and contradictory beliefs insides that mind of yours then you cannot believe both at the same time. So then, the question again is, is there a set standard of justice which binds us all as humans? Or is justice left up to the opinion of each individual? Again, I have answered your question, and my bet is, you will not answer mine.

Next, and most importantly, I am not "uncomfortable" at all answering the question, and I am not "uncomfortable" with acknowledging the fact that there is no set standard of justice which would apply to us all, and I am willing to live accordingly by not insisting that justice has been violated. So then, we have a Christian who is not "uncomfortable" at all with this being the case, while we have an unbeliever who wants to insist there is no absolute authority over us as humans, who then wants to go on to insist what justice would be. Is there any wonder why I continue to point out, "you cannot make this stuff up"?

I mean seriously! I have never made the argument that there is a God who has authority over us all, and his justice would be binding upon us all. Rather, I have always, ever acknowledge the fact that a set standard of authority cannot be demonstrated, and I live accordingly. You on the other hand, either believe there is some sort of authority over us all and this is the reason you can insist on what justice would be? Or you insist there is no set standard of justice and then want to insist upon what would violate said justice. Do you really want to talk about a trainwreck of a worldview?

2) Imply that the term justice can mean anything at all. Words apparently no longer mean words.

Not at all. I think we agree as to what the word "justice" means. Just like I think we can agree as to what the word "good" means. However, you and I can have a very different opinion of what "good' would be, even though we agree upon the meaning. In the same way, we can agree on what the word justice means and have a very different opinion on what justice would be. Unless of course, you have a set standard of justice which you would like to share with us? Do you see the mess you are in?

3) Keep continuing to press that the term justice means differing things to differing people

NO! Not at all. We are not saying the word justice has different meanings to different people. We all agree as to what justice would mean. The problem is, we may not all agree to what justice would be. Again, there are millions, upon millions of folks who are convinced that what happened on 9/11/01 was not justice in the least, while we have millions, upon millions who believe justice was served on 9/11/01. In the same way, we have millions upon millions of unbelievers who believe the passage you refer to would not be justice, while we have millions, upon millions of Christians who believe it to be justice. I do not fall under either category, since I do not insist on what justice would be. Are you insisting on what justice would be? If so, by what standard are you going by?

which then means it can also logically involve the rape of the innocent.

What innocent women were raped in the passage you are referring to?

The term justice apparently has no boundaries.

Again, the definition has boundaries. However, unless you have a set standard which would apply to all of us as humans, then the boundaries would be the opinion of any, and every individual. Millions, upon millions believe what occurred on 9/11/01 to be justice, while millions upon millions believed the actions to be unjust. Would you like to share your opinion on 9/11/01? Or do you have a set standard which would demonstrate which side would be correct?

4) Adultery apparently also includes thought crime, (simply because, the book of tales my interlocutor believes in, says so), which is also justly punishable by being raped. Which then also means that every married person deserves to be raped, as all will commit at least some thought crime.

You are correct, since I believe that Jesus is the authority (which I do not insist is the authority for anyone else) I can poke my chest out with the Pharisees and proudly proclaim, I have never committed adultery. However, when Jesus adds lust into the equation, I realize I am condemned with everyone who has actually committed adultery. With this being the case, I am in no position to judge anyone else. On the other hand, you who claims to have no authority at all, insists there is judgement to be cast upon others. Can you spell, TRAINWRECK?

5) God commands the rape of the adulterer's wives

No! I am not thinking this was a command. Rather, I am thinking that it was Nathan who said, "This is what the Lord says". It was not a command, but rather what God would allow. However, as we know no wives were raped.

rather that ordering the raping of the husband who actually penetrated someone other than his wives.

Again, this was not an order. Next, David was told that God would GIVE his wives to one in his own household, it never mentions rape. This is something you are adding to the equation. David took another man's wife, and God was warning David that he intended to GIVE David's wives to another in order for David to realize the sin he had committed. Now, I am not suggesting that this was good in any way, but according to the report in the passage it got the point across to David.

However, there is no need in us arguing over the text itself. Rather, the main point is, you either have a set standard of justice which would be binding upon us all, or you want to insist there is no set standard, and then want to insist what would absolutely violate a justice you insists does not exist.

the command was never actually carried out in this particular instance.

It was not a command! Moreover, there is no mention of rape, and it cannot be assumed, especially since the action was never carried out. We simply continue to demonstrate the dream world you are in now that you have left the dream world you were in when you were a Christian for decades of your adult life.

6) Being that this topic is about (God's justice), Jack still will not answer (whether or not) God's brand of justice is opinion.

I have never been asked this question that I remember? Again, this is not a yes, or no answer. The first thing which would have to be determined is whether there is a god. If there is a God, then I would suggest that His brand of justice would not be an opinion no matter what my opinion of His justice would be. However, if there is no god then we are all left to our own opinion of what justice would be, and one opinion is just as good as another, even if one's opinion of justice is based upon a god who does not exist.

These are the apologetic pitfalls,

apologetics:
a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity.

Is the above what I am doing? Well, no. The fact of the matter is, I am right now fighting against Christian nationalists who are insisting upon the "authority of Christianity". Rather, I am fine with whatever authority one chooses to follow, and I am also fine with those who want to insist there is no authority. As an American, I am for the freedom to pursue happiness in any way one sees fit, even if there are folks who hold to cognitive dissonance such as yourself. The problem comes in when we have one who spends hour, after hour on a debate site, who seems to want to insist there is no standard of authority over us all, and then wants to go on to insist that their brand of authority is somehow superiour to the rest of us. I am not seeing a whole lot of difference between this sort of person, and the Christian nationalists, except for the fact that the Christian nationalists are at least insisting upon a set standard of authority, while the other is insisting that there is no set standard of authority, but then want to insist upon what justice would be, with no authority at all. My friend, this is a far worse TRAINWRECK than the Christian nationalists.

<mental gymnastics>

Allow me to explain to you what "mental gymnastics" actually is. It is when one wants to insist there is no set standard of justice, and then wants to insist on what justice would have to be.

in which one must perform in order to retain devotion to this collection of fairy tales.

You do yourself no favors by comparing Christianity to "fairy tales". Unless of course you can make the argument of how the resurrection would have been made up. You are not going to make the argument because you cannot. Just like you are not going to answer the question as to whether there is a set standard of authority over us all. The question now is, who is it that is "uncomfortable"? It aint me!

Would you like some proverbial mustard on your proverbial created pretzel?

I do like mustard on my pretzels, and I am enjoying the one you are in right now, no mustard needed.

[POI]

I answered the question, but in case you missed it, allow me to answer again. If you can demonstrate a set standard of justice which would apply to us all, and it can be demonstrated that the passage you are referring to violates said standard, then the answer would be yes. However, if you insist there is no set standard of justice which would apply to us all, then the answer would be no. You see, you cannot insist there is no set standard of justice which would apply to us all, and then go on to insist that someone, or something violates justice. The best you could possibly say is that "someone, or something violates your opinion of justice". You certainly cannot say, it absolutely violates justice, since you insist there is no absolute justice. For one to insist there is no set standard of justice, and then go on to insist that something, or someone has absolutely violated justice, would be to demonstrate cognitive dissonance, and you would have to agree, since cognitive dissonance is to hold two different and contradictory beliefs insides that mind of yours then you cannot believe both at the same time. So then, the question again is, is there a set standard of justice which binds us all as humans? Or is justice left up to the opinion of each individual? Again, I have answered your question, and my bet is, you will not answer mine.

Yet again, unless any word can mean anything at all, (rape of the innocent) can be objectively ruled out as a possible/viable definition for the term justice. Therefore, case closed here. Hence, justice is not served by having the adulterer's wives raped. Even in your 'apologetic-like' attempt in weaseling out of the basic uncomfortable question by offering evasion, because you know the question paints your imaginary sky god in an unfavorable light, we can still rule options out. Unless, again, words no longer mean words. It's intellectual dishonesty, and nothing more.... And we skeptics smell it coming from a mile away.

Next, and most importantly, I am not "uncomfortable" at all answering the question, and I am not "uncomfortable" with acknowledging the fact that there is no set standard of justice which would apply to us all, and I am willing to live accordingly by not insisting that justice has been violated.

See my response above.

So then, we have a Christian who is not "uncomfortable" at all with this being the case, while we have an unbeliever who wants to insist there is no absolute authority over us as humans, who then wants to go on to insist what justice would be. Is there any wonder why I continue to point out, "you cannot make this stuff up"?

Another strawman... Nothing new... See my reply above.

I mean seriously! I have never made the argument that there is a God who has authority over us all, and his justice would be binding upon us all

Then you are no longer a Christian. You are in complete conflict with yourself. Talk about one big fat trainwreck. Christianity affirms that God has supreme authority over all things, a concept known as God's sovereignty or His dominion, which means He rules and governs everything in the universe. This authority is all-encompassing, applying to nature, human rulers, and even the forces that oppose Him.

Not at all. I think we agree as to what the word "justice" means. Just like I think we can agree as to what the word "good" means. However, you and I can have a very different opinion of what "good' would be, even though we agree upon the meaning. In the same way, we can agree on what the word justice means and have a very different opinion on what justice would be. Unless of course, you have a set standard of justice which you would like to share with us? Do you see the mess you are in?

Already addressed above.

NO! Not at all. We are not saying the word justice has different meanings to different people. We all agree as to what justice would mean. The problem is, we may not all agree to what justice would be. Again, there are millions, upon millions of folks who are convinced that what happened on 9/11/01 was not justice in the least, while we have millions, upon millions who believe justice was served on 9/11/01. In the same way, we have millions upon millions of unbelievers who believe the passage you refer to would not be justice, while we have millions, upon millions of Christians who believe it to be justice. I do not fall under either category, since I do not insist on what justice would be. Are you insisting on what justice would be? If so, by what standard are you going by?

Already addressed above.

What innocent women were raped in the passage you are referring to?

Because it was not actually carried out in that instance, was 'god' kidding, or other?

Again, the definition has boundaries.

Great, then the encompassing boundaries would not include the raping of the innocent.

You are correct, since I believe that Jesus is the authority (which I do not insist is the authority for anyone else) I can poke my chest out with the Pharisees and proudly proclaim, I have never committed adultery. However, when Jesus adds lust into the equation, I realize I am condemned with everyone who has actually committed adultery. With this being the case, I am in no position to judge anyone else. On the other hand, you who claims to have no authority at all, insists there is judgement to be cast upon others.

According to your world view, all married person(s) deserves to be raped.

No! I am not thinking this was a command. Rather, I am thinking that it was Nathan who said, "This is what the Lord says". It was not a command, but rather what God would allow. However, as we know no wives were raped.

You are not doing yourself any favors here. If "god" allows it, then raping them would have been okay anyways.

Again, this was not an order.

See my response directly above.

Next, David was told that God would GIVE his wives to one in his own household, it never mentions rape.

Right, and this is where I stated that these wives' consent were neither necessary nor required. I reckon that if these wives did not grant consent, the order would have still been carried out regardless, which means it was going to happen regardless of whether or not these wives wanted it. This is rape, without saying the word 'rape'.

However, there is no need in us arguing over the text itself. Rather, the main point is, you either have a set standard of justice which would be binding upon us all, or you want to insist there is no set standard, and then want to insist what would absolutely violate a justice you insists does not exist.

I understand this topic is very uncomfortable for you, as you need to apply mental gymnastics.

If there is a God, then I would suggest that His brand of justice would not be an opinion no matter what my opinion of His justice would be.

Great. Then according to your imaginary sky god, all married folks deserve to be raped. TRAINWRECK...

[POI]

You do yourself no favors by comparing Christianity to "fairy tales". Unless of course you can make the argument of how the resurrection would have been made up.

Yet another strawman, as demonstrated by post 45 of this thread: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=42567&start=40

You are not going to make the argument because you cannot. Just like you are not going to answer the question as to whether there is a set standard of authority over us all. The question now is, who is it that is "uncomfortable"? It aint me!

Another strawman, as demonstrated in my last post response/answer, and also prior, in this thread.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #26]

You continue to avoid the questions I have asked, over, and over again, and it is very easy for all of us to determine why that would be, and it is because your trainwreck of a worldview will not allow you to answer the questions.

First question: Is there a set standard of authority which has been demonstrated to be binding upon us all? I have no problem answering this question. My answer is no, there is no demonstrated authority which is binding upon us all. Of course, the next question would be, if there is not a set standard of authority which is binding upon us all, then can we insist that someone, or something else violates this standard? You cannot answer this question with that trainwreck of a worldview, but I can. If I cannot demonstrate a set authority which is binding upon us all, then I cannot insist that another's action is unjust simply because it does not align with my opinion of what justice would be.

The next question would be, if we cannot demonstrate a set standard of authority which would be binding upon us all, can we then go on to insist what justice would be? Another question you are avoiding is whether the events of 9-11-01 (and it just so happens today is the anniversary) would have been justice? How is it that there are millions, upon millions of folks who disagree over the justice of the event? My guess would be that you do not believe justice was served on 9-11, but the question would be, can you demonstrate this to be the case? Or would this simply be your opinion?

You are kinda stuck my friend. It is not simply that you will not answer the questions, but rather the fact that you cannot afford to answer the questions with that bankrupt worldview you are holding. It is just like the fact that you cannot afford to answer the question as to whether the reports of the resurrection were made up? Your worldview will not allow you to answer the question. If you answer yes to this question, then you will have to demonstrate how this would be a possibility, and you are fully aware that it is not a possibility, and if you answer no to this question then this would destroy the idea that Jesus may have never existed. Can you see why this is so much fun for me? You have to see the fun I am having with all of this.

Now, I really want to go through all you have said here, but you really do not give me much time at all. I am stealing time as it is in order to engage you, but you really seem to police this site 24 hours a day. If you have that much time, then that is fine by me, but please do not take my tardy responses as nothing more than the little time I have. With that being said, I will attempt to get to the rest of what you have said, if you will allow me to do so before being sure you respond to every post. In the meantime, I would really like to respond to this one point of yours.

Then you are no longer a Christian. You are in complete conflict with yourself.

This would be incorrect, and I will completely demonstrate this to be the case as we look at what else you have to say. However, before we do that, allow me too just point out the fact that this is coming from one who freely admits to being a convinced Christian for decades of his life without the use of the mind. This is the exact reason you can make such statements, because you fail to actually think about what you are saying. With that being fact, let us move on to the rest of what you have to say.

Christianity affirms that God has supreme authority over all things, a concept known as God's sovereignty or His dominion, which means He rules and governs everything in the universe. This authority is all-encompassing, applying to nature, human rulers, and even the forces that oppose Him.

Now, all of this would be correct. However, a thinking Christian would know that, although I believe, and am convinced all the above would be the case, I cannot in any way demonstrate this to be the case, and therefore I do not insist that you, or anyone else must agree to the position I hold. Ergo, I do not insist on there being an authority above us all and allow folks the liberty to follow any authority they wish to follow. Moreover, I do not insist that they could not have possibly used reason to come to the position they hold. You see, as a Christian I have no problem with any position one holds, and I am fine with allowing others to hold any position they are convinced of. The problem comes in when there are those who hold to a different position than I have, who then want to insist that it is not possible to use reason to hold to such a position. This is especially the case when it is coming from one who freely admits to holding the same position for decades of their life, without the use of the mind. When this occurs, I do really enjoy demonstrating the train wrecked, bankrupt, worldview such a one holds, and I will have to say that exposing your train wrecked, bankrupt worldview has been the easiest, and most enjoyable.

The most enjoyable thing here is, we have a Christian who is not insisting upon an authority which would be binding upon us all, who allows liberty for any, and all to be convinced as they wish, while we have an unbeliever, who was once a convinced believer, who is insisting upon some sort of authority of what justice would be, while at the same time insisting that there is no authority which would be binding upon us all. You cannot make this stuff up!

Please be sure to attempt to answer these questions.

1. Is there a set standard of authority which has been demonstrated to be binding upon us all?
2. If there is not a set standard of authority which is binding upon us all, then can we insist that someone, or something else violates this standard?
3. Were the events of 9-11 justice? If you answer either yes or no to this question, can you please explain the standard you are using to determine your answer?

BONUS QUESTION

Is it possible the reports of the resurrection were made up?

The thing is, I am not insisting upon a yes, or no answer to any of these questions, and will welcome any answer at all, because I understand that not all questions can be answered with a simple yes, or no, and those who insist on a yes, or no, are attempting to avoid the actual answer. So then, please feel free to answer any way you wish to all of these questions.

My guess will be your bankrupt worldview cannot afford to answer any of these questions at all. You cannot afford to answer yes, or no, so let us see if you can give any answer at all?

[POI]

First question: Is there a set standard of authority which has been demonstrated to be binding upon us all?

I have answered multiple times. You admit the answer has boundaries. (Raping the innocent) would not fall within these set boundaries for justice. They instead fall outside those boundaries. Yet again, unless any word can mean anything at all, then no one gets carte blanche, in a free-for-all manner. And yet, the Bible allows such actions, which fall outside these set boundaries for "justice". Therefore, your question is not only a deliberate deterrence -- (because this is exactly what apologists do when they are confronted with uncomfortable questions), but the question is also completely irrelevant. Why is it irrelevant? Because regardless of one's personal definition for the term justice, the allowance for (raping the innocent) is incompatible regardless. Unless it is 'National Opposite Day.' So, commence with the apologetics to "spin" the terms <innocent>and <rape> as well.

I have no problem answering this question. My answer is no, there is no demonstrated authority which is binding upon us all. Of course, the next question would be, if there is not a set standard of authority which is binding upon us all, then can we insist that someone, or something else violates this standard? You cannot answer this question with that trainwreck of a worldview, but I can. If I cannot demonstrate a set authority which is binding upon us all, then I cannot insist that another's action is unjust simply because it does not align with my opinion of what justice would be.

See above.

The next question would be, if we cannot demonstrate a set standard of authority which would be binding upon us all, can we then go on to insist what justice would be? Another question you are avoiding is whether the events of 9-11-01 (and it just so happens today is the anniversary) would have been justice? How is it that there are millions, upon millions of folks who disagree over the justice of the event? My guess would be that you do not believe justice was served on 9-11, but the question would be, can you demonstrate this to be the case? Or would this simply be your opinion?

Already answered, in multiple ways. You want to pivot, to get away from the terms <rape> and <innocent>.

You are kinda stuck my friend. It is not simply that you will not answer the questions, but rather the fact that you cannot afford to answer the questions with that bankrupt worldview you are holding.

More strawman arguments.

It is just like the fact that you cannot afford to answer the question as to whether the reports of the resurrection were made up? Your worldview will not allow you to answer the question. If you answer yes to this question, then you will have to demonstrate how this would be a possibility, and you are fully aware that it is not a possibility, and if you answer no to this question then this would destroy the idea that Jesus may have never existed. Can you see why this is so much fun for me? You have to see the fun I am having with all of this.

More strawman arguments. As stated in my prior response, post 45 of the other thread explains. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=42567&start=40

Now, I really want to go through all you have said here, but you really do not give me much time at all. I am stealing time as it is in order to engage you, but you really seem to police this site 24 hours a day. If you have that much time, then that is fine by me, but please do not take my tardy responses as nothing more than the little time I have. With that being said, I will attempt to get to the rest of what you have said, if you will allow me to do so before being sure you respond to every post. In the meantime, I would really like to respond to this one point of yours.

FYI, I have a full-time job, a wife, kids, and hobbies. You choose how you wish to manage your free time, and I'll do the same. But I do find it curious how you spend SO MUCH time on me, while avoiding much of what I actually bring up? Maybe instead of writing massive textwalls, repeating the same things over and over and over again, (for which I have also debunked), go after the arguments themselves. For example, you started to address the "Jesus is a Myth!" thread, and then completely aborted it?

(As a side note, Paul never met a living Jesus. He had a vision, and that's all. And the Gospels are completely wacked. How do we know Jesus was a real person? I would love to see your exchange with others in that thread, but you completely abandoned it, while saying you have no time, and spend much time here?..?.?.?)

This would be incorrect, and I will completely demonstrate this to be the case as we look at what else you have to say. However, before we do that, allow me too just point out the fact that this is coming from one who freely admits to being a convinced Christian for decades of his life without the use of the mind. This is the exact reason you can make such statements, because you fail to actually think about what you are saying. With that being fact, let us move on to the rest of what you have to say.

Shocker! More repeat strawman argumentation.

Now, all of this would be correct. However, a thinking Christian would know that, although I believe, and am convinced all the above would be the case, I cannot in any way demonstrate this to be the case, and therefore I do not insist that you, or anyone else must agree to the position I hold. Ergo, I do not insist on there being an authority above us all and allow folks the liberty to follow any authority they wish to follow. Moreover, I do not insist that they could not have possibly used reason to come to the position they hold.

Irrelevant. You believe this invisible agency is real. Hence, you then believe this invisible agency's pronouncements are objective. And this invisible agency allows the rape of the innocent. And yet, these attribute are outside the boundaries of the term justice and are also incompatible with any rational given definition of the term

1. Is there a set standard of authority which has been demonstrated to be binding upon us all?
2. If there is not a set standard of authority which is binding upon us all, then can we insist that someone, or something else violates this standard?
3. Were the events of 9-11 justice? If you answer either yes or no to this question, can you please explain the standard you are using to determine your answer?

1. Already answered above, and prior.
2. Already answered above, and prior.
3. Already answered above, and prior. -- (cough cough, you are now trying to pivot away from the terms (rape and innocent).

Is it possible the reports of the resurrection were made up?

Yes. Now please re-visit the thread you completely abandoned.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #29]

You continue to say that you have already answered the questions, but I am certain you have not, because you cannot afford to answer the questions. So then, if you have answered the questions, it will be no problem for you to answer them again right here without referring us to another post in order to avoid confusion. So then, here are the questions again.

1. Is there a set standard of authority which has been demonstrated to be binding upon us all?
2. If there is not a set standard of authority which is binding upon us all, then can we insist that someone, or something else violates this standard?
3. Were the events of 9-11 justice? If you answer either yes or no to this question, can you please explain the standard you are using to determine your answer?

BONUS QUESTION

Is it possible the reports of the resurrection were made up?

You can prove me wrong, but my guess is you will not give an answer to these questions because if you do then your bankrupt world view will be exposed.